Labour admits having their head up their arse.

[Swoop]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10596584

Labour leader Phil Goff has admitted the party made mistakes with its so-called nanny-state policies.

Mr Goff said he wanted to "draw a line under the past", citing unpopular policies such as those telling people what size shower heads and which lightbulbs they could use.

"We'd stopped listening to what people's priorities were and seemed to be working on issues they thought were sideshows," Mr Goff said yesterday.


No shit sherlock!

[NDORFN]

It took defeat at an election before anyone admitted to anything... what does that tell you about Labour?

[Elysium]

It took defeat at an election before anyone admitted to anything... what does that tell you about Labour?

That they were right? Look at what National are becomming.

[NDORFN]

That they were right? Look at what National are becomming.

Ah no... I was thinking more along the lines of that they only start pretending to give a shit about what the public when they're not in power. What are National becoming by the way? (aside from the better of two evils that they have always been).

[ManDownUnder]

"We'd stopped listening to what people's priorities were and seemed to be working on issues they thought were sideshows," Mr Goff said yesterday.

No shit sherlock!

LOL... they had their heads up their arse... and everyone else's arses too

.... and a little boys waits...

All that aside for a second though, Labour still has some big problems to deal with even though they're no longer in power. I'd honestly put their leader as one of the biggest. He has all the charisma of a cold fried egg

[Elysium]

Ah no... I was thinking more along the lines of that they only start pretending to give a shit about what the public when they're not in power. What are National becoming by the way? (aside from the better of two evils that they have always been).

People accuse Labour of "Nanny-State" policies while National go and do something for example by not listening to the people when they say they want the anti-smacking law abolished.

If you want to give some credit to Labour, at least they don't break so many promises that National made.

LOL... they had their heads up their arse... and everyone else's arses too

.... and a little boys waits...

All that aside for a second though, Labour still has some big problems to deal with even though they're no longer in power. I'd honestly put their leader as one of the biggest. He has all the charisma of a cold fried egg

Now if Winston Peters was Labour leader on the other hand..... :laugh:

[James Deuce]

Who EVER expects election promises to be fulfilled? If so, do I have a deal for you!

Once you've voted, your "say" is over. You have a voting system in place to effect change, but youse fellas don't know how to use it and insist that it is the root of the evil that befalls us - not the chumps you keep voting for.

Both parties are a micron to the side of centre that keeps their voter base feeling secure.

Fascists in other words.

Stop whinging and figure out how to get McGilliguddy re-registered as a political party.

[oldrider]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10596584

Labour leader Phil Goff has admitted the party made mistakes with its so-called nanny-state policies.

Mr Goff said he wanted to "draw a line under the past", citing unpopular policies such as those telling people what size shower heads and which lightbulbs they could use.

"We'd stopped listening to what people's priorities were and seemed to be working on issues they thought were sideshows," Mr Goff said yesterday.


No shit sherlock!

Look very closely and see if you can spot the difference between the "red" (Labour) socialist party and the "blue" (National) socialist party!

For me it is simple, the latter appear to be nicer people overall and slightly less determined to steal our freedoms or control our every move! :sick:

They shape their behaviour to please their customers (voters) and of course in New Zealand the voters are predominantly "Socialist".

We always get the government we deserve!

Labour will be back as soon as National pooh the socialist bed again! :doh:

[NDORFN]

People accuse Labour of "Nanny-State" policies while National go and do something for example by not listening to the people when they say they want the anti-smacking law abolished.

If you want to give some credit to Labour, at least they don't break so many promises that National made.


Now if Winston Peters was Labour leader on the other hand..... :laugh:

Yeah what's up with his stance on the anti-smacking law? Maybe they know something we don't. Still, it's utter bullshit that it wasn't repealed.

[ManDownUnder]

Now if Winston Peters was Labour leader on the other hand..... :laugh:

Actually you do make my point - it's a great example. I personally don't agree with a lot of what he says but he has abundant charisma. One of the few I think since Lange

[ManDownUnder]

Yeah what's up with his stance on the anti-smacking law? Maybe they know something we don't. Still, it's utter bullshit that it wasn't repealed.

I personally believe it's largely influenced by the following...
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
Particularly
In its General Comment 8 (2000) the Committee on the Rights of the Child stated that there was an "obligation of all States parties to move quickly to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment and all other cruel or degrading forms of punishment of children".<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-8>[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#cite_note-8)</SUP> Article 19 of the Convention states that State Parties must "take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence",<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-9>[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#cite_note-9)</SUP> but neither the words "corporal punishment", nor any synonym thereof, are mentioned in the Convention.

NZ is a signatory to it along with 192 other countries and I expect there would be big upsets at the UN, along with a negative economic impact should we actually change the law in the face of the CRC.

So the govt of the day needs to find a way through this maze of public opinion wanting one thing, and the International Community wanting another.

[hospitalfood]

Phil Goff is not good for the labour party. what an eatarse

[Mully]

People accuse Labour of "Nanny-State" policies while National go and do something for example by not listening to the people when they say they want the anti-smacking law abolished.


As opposed to the people who created and implemented the law in the first place that 90-odd percent of people didn't want?? TBH, it's a nothing law anyway. The cost to repeal it would be enormous and wouldn't gain very much.

Or the 90-odd percent of people who voted for fewer MPs? How did Labour go with implementing that? Oh yeah, I remember now.


I'd honestly put their leader as one of the biggest. He has all the charisma of a cold fried egg

Nonsense - Phil Goff (or Phil-in) and Annette King are fantastic news. I hope they stay as Labour's leadership forever. (as long as Labour don't put "Margin of Error" as the leader, he seems to be more popular than either of them.....)

As an aside, has anyone noticed how Goff talks exactly like Clark did? Same movements of the head and same. pauses. in all. the sentences. that he. says. Scary.

[slowpoke]

It's a double edge sword. Was it the government messing with small shit that doesn't matter? Or was it the populace worrying about small shit the Government does?

Lightbulbs, for fuck sake. Who gives a shit what lightbulbs you can buy! Yet we make it into a big deal, not the government.

Our priorities are more fucked up than Labours' ever were.

Edit: oh yeah, I've gotta agree with the comments regarding Phil Goff's lack of charisma. It doesn't matter if he's Ghandi, Einstein and Solomon rolled into one, he comes across as Ned Flanders.

[Laava]

Yeah what's up with his stance on the anti-smacking law? Maybe they know something we don't. Still, it's utter bullshit that it wasn't repealed.
Yeah but think of all the people they employed to do a referendumb!
That's progress alright!

[Laava]

I It doesn't matter if he's Ghandi, Einstein and Solomon rolled into one, he comes across as Ned Flanders.

Hey , don't slanders the Flanders! He is left handed not double left footed!

[Swoop]

Governments are like nappies. They need changing regularly and for the same reasons.

Liarbour had been in for far too long and was most certainly "full of it".

[MikeL]

Lightbulbs, for fuck sake. Who gives a shit what lightbulbs you can buy! Yet we make it into a big deal, not the government.


Lightbulbs. Good example. The furore over regulation of lightbulbs (and showers) was orchestrated by the opposition in cahoots with the media in order to discredit the government. What Labour got wrong was simply the timing. Like everything else, they were in advance of the people (this is what leadership means). Ten, twenty or more years from now, with governments being forced to accept the reality of scarce resources and the unsustainability of current economic paradigms based on limitless growth, these regulations and more draconian ones will be accepted with hardly a murmur. Think about fisheries. The industry maintains that NZ leads the world in sustainable fishing because of its quota system. Crap. It's just slightly better than the rape of the fisheries that is the rule in other parts of the world, but its still pillage. Twenty years from now there will be stringent regulations severely limiting what recreational fishers now consider their god-given rights. But faced with the alternative of wiping out whole species, we will accept the change. We won't accept these things now because (i) we are lied to by vested interests who reassure us that drastic change is both unnecessary and harmful to the economy, and (ii) we want to believe that we can go on doing what we have always done because we don't want to confront uncomfortable realities.
Social policy is in the same category. Change only happens in the face of strong resistance, and then future generations can't believe that in the old days the people were so backward in their thinking...
"My god, you mean that back in 2009 people were actually allowed to hit their children??!"

[NDORFN]

Lightbulbs. Good example. The furore over regulation of lightbulbs (and showers) was orchestrated by the opposition in cahoots with the media in order to discredit the government. What Labour got wrong was simply the timing. Like everything else, they were in advance of the people (this is what leadership means). Ten, twenty or more years from now, with governments being forced to accept the reality of scarce resources and the unsustainability of current economic paradigms based on limitless growth, these regulations and more draconian ones will be accepted with hardly a murmur. Think about fisheries. The industry maintains that NZ leads the world in sustainable fishing because of its quota system. Crap. It's just slightly better than the rape of the fisheries that is the rule in other parts of the world, but its still pillage. Twenty years from now there will be stringent regulations severely limiting what recreational fishers now consider their god-given rights. But faced with the alternative of wiping out whole species, we will accept the change. We won't accept these things now because (i) we are lied to by vested interests who reassure us that drastic change is both unnecessary and harmful to the economy, and (ii) we want to believe that we can go on doing what we have always done because we don't want to confront uncomfortable realities.
Social policy is in the same category. Change only happens in the face of strong resistance, and then future generations can't believe that in the old days the people were so backward in their thinking...
"My god, you mean that back in 2009 people were actually allowed to hit their children??!"

Smack thier children, not hit. Get it right.

[Brian d marge]

Who EVER expects election promises to be fulfilled? If so, do I have a deal for you!

Once you've voted, your "say" is over. You have a voting system in place to effect change, but youse fellas don't know how to use it and insist that it is the root of the evil that befalls us - not the chumps you keep voting for.

Both parties are a micron to the side of centre that keeps their voter base feeling secure.

Fascists in other words.

Stop whinging and figure out how to get McGilliguddy re-registered as a political party.

and those chump's are on a string tugged by the IMF and alike

i wouldn't matter if you put a blind gibbon in power , American influences would shine through

anyone been to Hawaii?? It looked exactly like Auckland , same houses , shops chain fences , just drove on the wrong side , ( and slightly better )

Carry on with this current government , :crazy:

when it starts hurting , allow me the pleasure of saying

I told you so


How bout we start on getting the quota system removed

or ramp up the cheese cutter campaign

or anything ( I have and I'm not even in the country !)

Stephen

[rainman]

Labour and National are both useless sets of bastidges, none of whom have the testicular fortitude to tackle the real issues we face. (Then again, the primary reason for this is the idiocy of the electorate, so perhaps I should be more gracious). Personally I dislike National slightly more than Labour but YMMV, and your preference, and mine, will make little difference. Supporting one of the other of these is not the path to liberty, for us as individuals, communities, or as a nation (if that concept has much meaning these days).

When either one of them faces up to our massive debt levels, non-clean Green NZ reality, unsustainable economy, or vulnerability to impending oil depletion (inter alia), I'll care about them.

Until then, anything I can do to make them less relevant to me or others is a good thing.

[Flatcap]

Lightbulbs. Good example. The furore over regulation of lightbulbs (and showers) was orchestrated by the opposition in cahoots with the media in order to discredit the government.

I love it when a plan comes together

[StoneY]

Ah no... I was thinking more along the lines of that they only start pretending to give a shit about what the public when they're not in power. What are National becoming by the way? (aside from the better of two evils that they have always been).

True of the last 5 years they were in but man I still reckon we were better off with Helen
Oh well- the vote spoke

[Winston001]

It's a double edge sword. Was it the government messing with small shit that doesn't matter? Or was it the populace worrying about small shit the Government does?

Lightbulbs, for fuck sake. Who gives a shit what lightbulbs you can buy! Yet we make it into a big deal, not the government.

Our priorities are more fucked up than Labours' ever were.



Agreed. The current fuss and extraordinary passion over a nonsensical referendum is a case in point. NZ has much more serious issues to think about but the politicians never get a chance to start a discussion. They are continuously distracted by shallow media focus on minutiae rather then actual robust debate.

For example, withdrawing assistance for adult education. What happened? All the discussion was focused on the two women who complained and whether the Minister was naughty releasing their DPB details. Trite and empty stuff.

As for Phil Goff, I don't mind him. He is a "dry" meaning he's not a true lefty. Anyone who followed Helen Clark was going to have a tough time and it will take quite a while for Goff to be accepted. Goff will be much more in tune with National's thinking than people realise.

[Winston001]

Who EVER expects election promises to be fulfilled?



Actually Jim, thats an example of a truism. Most people believe politicians don't keep their promises - ergo, the statement must be true.

Except its not. Here is what Nathan McCluskey, of University of Canterbury found:

“.......a popular impression of dishonesty and a fundamental lack of integrity which colours not only the way individual politicians are viewed, but whether the parties themselves can be trusted to keep any promises at all.” McCluskey says this causes scepticism and a lack of faith in our representative electoral system.

However in his research, McCluskey found that both the Labour and National parties were better at keeping their word before 1984, averaging about 80 percent delivery on pre-election promises. Muldoon’s was the most reliable government, which kept 88 percent of its promises, while the worst was the 1996-99 National government, which made good on only 50 percent.




http://www.usu.co.nz/inunison/news/kiwi-politicians-keep-promises-after-all-says-study/

[Flatcap]

However in his research, McCluskey found that both the Labour and National parties were better at keeping their word before 1984, averaging about 80 percent delivery on pre-election promises[/I]. Muldoon’s was the most reliable government, which kept 88 percent of its promises, while the worst was the 1996-99 National government, which made good on only 50 percent.




http://www.usu.co.nz/inunison/news/kiwi-politicians-keep-promises-after-all-says-study/

Interesting - and when did MMP come in.....

[MikeL]

Smack thier children, not hit. Get it right.
As the plantation owner said to Mr Wilberforce: "You may call it slavery, I prefer to term it the efficient utilisation of non-voluntary labour"...

You can try to define the word "smack" any way you want, but you don't change the reality.

[James Deuce]

Actually Jim, thats an example of a truism. Most people believe politicians don't keep their promises - ergo, the statement must be true.

Except its not. Here is what Nathan McCluskey, of University of Canterbury found:

“.......a popular impression of dishonesty and a fundamental lack of integrity which colours not only the way individual politicians are viewed, but whether the parties themselves can be trusted to keep any promises at all.” McCluskey says this causes scepticism and a lack of faith in our representative electoral system.

However in his research, McCluskey found that both the Labour and National parties were better at keeping their word before 1984, averaging about 80 percent delivery on pre-election promises. Muldoon’s was the most reliable government, which kept 88 percent of its promises, while the worst was the 1996-99 National government, which made good on only 50 percent.




http://www.usu.co.nz/inunison/news/kiwi-politicians-keep-promises-after-all-says-study/

I understand entirely.

However, and I will stick to my guns on this, the first promises dismissed post-election are always ones that will benefit minorities in meaningful ways and were presented as visible election promises. I'm also discussing election promises that benefit average Joe Bloggs. They always melt away post-election, because the reality is an extra $20 in the hand is pointless when Health and Education infrastructure is failing.

National changed the rules this time and followed through on reducing state assistance for those who had no say in how they ended up and they are quietly dismantling funding for educating and caring for people with congenital and chromosomal disorders. It was a promise they made two years before the election.

I am eagerly awaiting the second half of that promise which was to make genetic screening of all foetuses compulsory, and the abortion of foetuses with particular chromosomal and foetal malformation disorders compulsory. I intend to destroy the National Party if they go there.

From a personal perspective, politicians only follow through on promises that make life a little more difficult for the individual. If the other side of the coin is makin gthings better for the country as a whole, then that is all good. National did a fine job of selling the right response to a sudden onset recession immediately post-election.